On CARM more stupid atheist tricks
post 14
fruty Pebbles

I think Meta is deliberately trying to be deceptive in including his "or higher power" statement in along with his "belief in some form of deity" statement. He is so desperate to bump up the number of god-believers (33%), that he includes in his stats, those who believe in the spiritual/higher power (18%) ...even though they specifically state that they do not believe in God. Then he tries to weasel around it by saying that he wasn't being deceptive because he did after all, include the words "or higher power" in his statement.

Notice he wants to put the percentage of all God believers at 33%, the chart says that is the percentage of Christians. God believers as a whole are 90%. He's referring to an argument I've had with several atheists on carm. It centers around their need to divide and conquer and their further need to bolster their own numbers. Now after including Buddhism, Hinduism, Agnostics and everyone who isn't a Christian as atheists, they are trying divide all Chrsitians from each other so that every individual Christin is a denomination of one. Now according to their backward way of doing things Christianity is only like 1% of the world population and atheism is bigger than any one religoius tradition.

This approach is so clearly mindless. Its' so backward to reality. We can see form the pie chart (data from 2005) Christianity is the biggest religion. atheism is like 4% atheism fits into a category that is 16%, but it says half the people in that category believe in God or Higher power. Of that half half are "I don't know" therefore, actual atheism is half of a half of 16, meaning 4%. The category itself is "no organized religion." So my arugment has been that all togehter all believer in God of any stripe equals 90% of world population.

Atheists can't have this so in order to undermine this figure and distort the issues they come out with the moronic idea that "higher power" can't be equated with God. Yet I show that most of those who use that phrase are thinking of God. We know the phrase came form AA and the people who created were clearly thinking of God.

From Wiki Article
"Higher Power"

Higher Power is a term coined in the 1930s in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and is used in other twelve-step programs. It is also sometimes referred to as a power greater than ourselves and is frequently abbreviated to HP.

They may have taken it form William James:

Sources that may have contributed to the adoption of the term in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), the first twelve-step group, include spirituality, New Thought and the work of William James.^[1] James, who wrote "The only cure for dipsomania is religiomania" in The Varieties of Religious Experience, is cited in the 'Spiritual Experience' appendix of Alcoholics Anonymous (also known as the "Big Book").^[2]

William James was definitely writing about God. Certainly James makes the correlation.

Sociologist Darren Sherkat researched the belief of Americans in a Higher Power. He based his research on data from 8,000 adults polled by the Chicago-based National Opinion Research Center between 1988 and 2000. Among his findings were that 8% stated "I don't believe in a personal god, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind." This is the same figure as found by the 1999 Gallup national poll of Americans. Sherkat also found that 16% of the Jewish people surveyed agreed with the statement about a 'higher power', while 13.2% of liberal Protestants and 10.6% of Episcopalians also agreed with it.^[3]

This study comes from John Dart, "Ameirca's Belief in God is Highly Nuanced, study says," Christian Century Dec 14 2004. The link in the original article is dead. It was retrieved in 2008 from form form of Way back machine for the Wiki article.

This would be fine for theology. Liberal theologians would have no trouble equating impersonal god with God. The atheist here are using the concept "God" from Christian fundamentalism and acting like that the original concept of God. Atheists can't allow religious people to speak fo thier own beliefs. They only mock and ridicule them and make them look stupid when they can do the bait and switch and put their straw-God argument in place of the real issues. They have a vested interest in seeing the fundamentalists as the only true form of Christianity. They also think it came first becuase that's what they came out of.

A statement about AA belief in an article by an atheist seeking to make a "higher power" for atheists:

a Higher Power for Athiests
and Agnostics by Roger E. Bissell
Jan 23 1989

We were then encouraged to believe that “a Power greater than ourselves” could restore us to sanity. That reliance on our selves or egos and our hedonistic or willful impulses—rather than higher principles—was the main source of the emotional turmoil and chaos in our lives. That focusing on trying to change someone else’s character or behavior—rather than doing what is right for ourselves—was the cause of our continuing feelings of misery and helplessness.

We were further invited to “turn our will and our lives over to the care of God” as we understood Him—to admit “to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs”—to be “entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character”—to “humbly ask Him to remove our shortcomings”—and to seek “through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God” as we understood Him, “praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out. (Except for the phrase “persons, places and things,” the above quotes are all from the Twelve Steps of AA.)

This says clearly that "higher power" is just a euphemism for god but it's leaves the issue open ended as to what the means in the mind of the "believer." Thus atheists are assuming that there's no way to tell if that 8% are understanding it as "god" or as an alternative to God. The difference would be that if they are right atheists can say they have 8% of the world population. If they are wrong they get to say they have 4%. Wow! So crucial! Since Bissell was trying to construct a concept of a higher power that would not be God and thus could be embraced by atheists who need AA. The point is pretty clear what they had in mind was God they were trying to avoid chasing anyone out with specific religious views.

In time, however, most of them come to accept the fact that the 12-Step programs, while not religious per se, are very spiritual—and that in order to offer spiritual and emotional recovery for the greatest number, these programs should scrupulously avoid reference to any specific religious point of view.(ibid).

Slikworth.net

Dick B. "Our Creator and Early AA"

And we might ask, why the phrase “higher power” was substituted for reference to God. We might ask why the reference was to “a” higher power, thus implying there was a choice, rather than one God, one Heavenly Father, one Maker, one Creator of the heavens and the earth. We might also ask why the first letter in each of the words was capitalized so that the phrase read “Higher Power,” implying some A.A. conferred special divinity or special status or special “god.”...

If you know your A.A. history, you know that the Steps do not now and never did have the phrase “higher power” in them. You know that the First Edition of the Big Book did not capitalize the first letter in both words. And you know that the Big Book text to this very day only refers to “higher power” twice. Both times, the reference and the context are to God–the same God that the Big Book called “Creator,” “Maker,” “Father,” “Spirit,” and “Father of lights.” All terms that refer to the God of the Bible. All terms that refer to the Big Book’s urging that there is ONE that has all power, that this ONE is God, and an imperative wish that the newcomer “find Him [the same ONE God, ONE Creator, ONE Maker] now!

One little kicker you might notice at the bottom of that pie chart. It doesn't' say half of the 'nonreligious' believers in a "higher power." I don't actually know what that guy meant by my "higher power statement" I don't remember making one. It's not the pie chart becuase that says "theistic." Half are theistic. Not just into "higher power" but theistic.


more latter

Brain dead hate male from athesit named "Morrison"

A little brain dead "activist" (his bio says) (that means he sends hate male on the net and pretends he's helping), says:

Morrison said...

Your absurd spelling destroys your credibility.

Spell Check would solve it.

And yet you do nothing.

Why?

Because you are DOING IT ON PURPOSE!

You are spreading disinformation to make Christians look as Stupid as you appear.

June 23, 2012 9:24 AM
Delete


This is guy is saying that I'm trying to make Christians. Does that imply that he's a Christian? So he's saying that to make Christians look bad. OOooooo. this is a clever psych thing. Not it's a troll seeking attention.

I had two errors. No other underlines except names. I use spell check in ever dumb ass because I have fire fox. In this one that he comments on there were two erorrs, both typos. If he is lame enough to think that my credibility is ruined because I said "nokw" rather than Know, and becasue I said 'gbout' rather than "about." those were the only mistakes, that means his idea of credibility is pretty stupid.

so little mentally challenged child to get some attention do you feel imporatnt now?

Atheists endanger knowlege

Atheist were bashing Theology again talking how stupid it is. They said theology si not learning. I said it's taught in every major university in the world.

Vangelis:

Whilst you can study theology at university, it's hardly of any significance as a learning. There is no factual basis in the study of mythical beings. It's like having a university degree in the study of fairies.

Originally Posted by Metacrock

In other words, having read no theology at all, you just assume that it's about mythological being because you don't believe in God.

Vangelis:

Know, I assume that it's about the study of mythological god(s) because I understand Greek and I know how the word theology is derived from the Greek.

Meta:
even if it was about that people who study real mythology are very learned and their lives are based upon scholarship and learning. so this just shows your view of the world is anti-intellectual yu don't know what you are talking abut.

Mary Jane

How can the study of mythology be learning? You are right here. I don't get it.

Meta:

for all you know the majority of modern theologians could be saying "we don't believe in God either" You wouldn't know ti because you refuse to learn about it.

Mary Jane

You don't need to study mythology for that. There is no god because rational thinking along with every scientific study leaves no room for a god.

Meta

your handlers tell yu to think "this is some backward deal" it makes you feel important and you want to believe them so you don't bother to check it out.

SG

I can thin for myself.

Meta:

I suggest you don't know what is factually based and what is not.

Mary Jane

I know theology is not factually based.

Meta

The hall mark of the atheist ideology is that there only one form of knowledge everything else that doesn't conform to it is old fashion 'Non factional an good.

Because they follow this model the actual pay off of atheism would be to destroy all arts and literature, all philosophy all history all learning that is not science even most social scinece.

Atheists say the most outrageous nonsense about theology without having read any of it. They do this only because the associate theologian with belief in God. (they are so out of the loop modem theology could be atheistic for all they know, and some of it is---they have no idea becuase they are so determiner not to check it out or know anything about it).

Atheist make up trite BS about televangelists by extending what they know of televangelists. assuming theologians are just jumped up televangelists. Since they have the slightest idea it's all the same to them.

If we extend this idea, they want to shut down ideas they don't know becuase of the propaganda value of no opposition then what' going to stop them from shutting down psychology when so much psychological work reinforces the value of religion?

What's going to stop them form shutting down the arts when so much of the arts don't' involve science? What's going to stop them form shutting down literature when study of literature contributes to theologian methods of textual criticism?


any form of knowledge not in their domain they treat as non-knowledge. So there is no reason why they should not shut down art, literature, philosophy, social scineces anything that gives an alternate view point.

one must have an advanced degree to do theology they refuse to learn what it's about but they are content to shut it down never knowing what it says. this in itself is totalitarian and truth regime.

Liberation Sarah

Colleges used to offer degrees in phrenology meta. The fact that people can (and do) waste countless hours of their lives studying a subject and mastering what generations of people have thought up and written about the subject doesn't mean the object of the study actually reflects anything in reality. The study of theology is on par with the study of mythology in my opinion. The gods of today will be categorized on the bookshelves next to Poseidon and Zeus in a few centuries.

Rossum

One of the indications of a content-free argument is that it can be turned around and pointed the other way very easily. If there is actual unambiguous evidence in the argument, then this cannot be done.

they are just backing up my point. They can't value learning unless it produces scinece they can't imagine mythology being valued as knowledge unless it becomes science. they don't nkow anything gbout the world of letters so they are totally unaware of the tremulous learning that goes into the study of mythology. they can only conceive of learning as scientific knowledge.

Don't Confuse Me With the Facts: Atheist Reaction to my 200 Studies on Religoius Experince

Originally Posted by Deist

I looked at your site. All I saw was a bunch of names. Are we supposed to check out each name and see what that dolt said? You, as a scholar, can't compile the 200 alleged "proofs" and put them on your blog??? Are you kidding me??

What he's calling a list of names is bibliography listing the studies for the arguments I make on religious experience. These are the 200 studies I always talk about that show experiencing God's presence changes our life dramatically in long term positive way. These studies over a 50 year period all show that religious experience is good for you. What he's calling "a bunch of names" also include publication data so the reader can look them up. Of course in five years of talking about them they never have. I can't link to the studies (I've tired) most of them are either not on the net or they are JOSTOR or Pub med you have to pay to see them. The next best thing and all that is required in debate is to provide the citation so they can be looked up.

Here's an example, the first few cites:

Adams, N. (1995). Spirituality, science and therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 16 (4), 201-208.

Alexander, C. (1978). A literature review of the individual differences approach to mystical states of consciousness and a proposed alternative perspective. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Cambridge, MA.

Alexander, C. (1982). Ego development, personality and behavioral change in inmates practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique or participating in other programs: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Doctoral dissertation, Dept. of Psychology and Social Relations, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Alexander, C., Boyer, R. & Orme-Johnson, D. (1985). Distinguishing between transcendental consciousness and lucidity. Lucidity Letter, 4(2), 68-85.

Alexander, C.N., Chandler, K. & Boyer, R.W. (in press). Experience and understanding of pure consciousness in the Vedic Science of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. In Gackenbach, J.I. & Hunt, H. (Eds.). Higher states of consciousness: Theoretical and experimental perspectives, N.Y.: Plenum. 1990

Alexander, C.N., Davies, J.L., Dixon, C.A., Dillbeck, M.C., Oetzel, R.M., Muehlman, J.M. & Orme-Johnson, D.W. (in press). Higher stages of consciousness beyond formal operations: The Vedic psychology of human development. In C.N. Alexander and E.J. Langer (Eds.), Higher stages of human development: Adult growth beyond formal operations, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

That's the "bunch of names." ALL I saw was a "bunch of names." of course he just didn't notice it's also publisher, name of publication, date of publication and so on. He's never a bibliography before. this illiterate who has never done a bibliography actually said my scholarship is lacking!

My God you guys are so lazy. how do you think I know this stuff? because I did check it out. yes in fact you are expected to check out every name! btw do you not understand the concept of Bibliography? were excuse form all English classes?

If there was a site were all these studies on the net and could be linked to I would be linked to. Most of them are on Pub med and Jostar and other academic sties that require money to see. I had to get them in hard copy one by one. I did. so I'm not concerned that you have to go to some effort. did I say you have to see every one? why can't you just get one?

in five years not one of you has done that.

before you start ragging on my scholarship be sure you know what that word means. one of the major things it meas is a knowledge of how to look stuff up.

You write volumes on your blog, and yet the link just goes to names of people? You think we're stupid? We're supposed to spend hours and days looking up what each of these people said? YOU are the one making the claims. Put the studies, surveys, questionnaires, etc. on your blog, so we can examine them for ourself. What are you afraid of?

Gee why didn't I think of that? You mean like there:

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/08/defense-of-m-scale.html

Here:
http://www.doxa.ws/experience/mystical.html

here:

http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Mystical3.html

here:

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/Supernature4.html

it's all over my old site and on my new one.

do I think you are stupid? Let's see, you don't know what documentation is. you don't know what bibliographies are. you don't understand that the word "scholar" means. you don't know ow work a library you can't figure out that you don't need to look at every one bu a random sample would tell what you want to know.

I'll hold off judgement on if I think you are stupid I'll let the reader decide.

the things I"m saying may seem absurd to your generation but it's the way I grew up dong it. No debate team in America would go into a debate round in high school or college debate on the assumption that they have to have all he material with them in entirety. It's perfectly acceptable to offer just the source so an enterprising debater can look it up.

If I had to spend five years researching these studies and into this body of knowledge, why can't you be bothered to look one up?

atheist said:

You won't, cause you know darn well that these studies stink, and don't show what you claim.

That is BS. I know damn well the opposite is true. I've talked to many of the researchers. I have gotten to know the major researcher of most of them, the inverter of the M scale personally. I was a sociology major I studied how to do social science research in college both graduate and undergraduate and I know these are find studies. they are varying in quality but some are very very good.

this says a lot more about the critic's laziness and ideological bias and lack of expertise in social scinece research.

Meta, you should be ashamed of your obfuscation and diversion.

you should be ashamed of your refusal to undersatnd the truth. you do not know what research is about.

stop your little pretensions lecture you do not have the erudition to which you pretend.



he goes on

You know better. the people here are too smart for this. This isn't catechism class. The people here regularly run circles around these Christians. You need better stuff than a blog with names of people who have done class papers, or written in some obscure college journal or a religious mag about sending out questionnaires. I'm not even sure if that's what those people did.

That's a list of names it's the citations for the studies. Where you look them up.
Some appear to study the occult, lucid dreaming, childhood memories, and who knows what all. Maybe alien abductions. And this is to be taken seriously??? Seriously, Meta...come onnnnn!!!!

(hey reader: do you see this actually proves he didn't read the stuff. He took the other guy's word for it that it was just a bunch of names, either that or he doesn't know what bibliography is either.

Atheist Says:

Is your point that people who claim a god belief do better in test questions on happiness than non believers? That's a no brainer because they believe they will be happier, and therefore, they are.

This is rich. The studies are mostly questionnaires because more social science studies are. Most of these were done psychologists. Its' a complex matter of constructing a good scientific questionarie (yes they can be) then making a good study design in terms of random and representative study, double and all of that. This guy assumes that because they asking them question they don't know if they had an experience or if their lives are better. They are so stupid because they had experiences they can't be trusted to say dah I'm happier now." They can't be trusted to say if their lives, they couldn't know. If they made a black box and imposed the will of a scientist on them and said "we find that be electrical impulses given off form this person are indicative of the impulses given off by happy people" perhaps they would except that, that would be objective and scientific! It would also be BS and scinece fiction. They have been brain washed as atheist to deny personal experience to think of perception as always flawed and never trust worthy.

They can't undersatnd how surveys and questionnaires are scientific and how they can be designed into a good scientific study because they don't know scinece. All they know is the mystique of "objective." Black boxes and flashing lights and mathematics that's science. We can't trust anything anyone says. so if someone says they had an experience and it made their lives better hat's a lie. It never occurs to them to wonder, gee how is it all the people who make up these certain kinds of experiences just happen to make up the same kind of betterment that it brings them? O it's just a coincidense don't even think about it.

Your studies, surveys, whatever you call them prove only that the law of cause and effect, and that you are what you believe you are. Tony Robbins could impart the same message, with the same, or better, results.

Whatever you call them (don't confuse me with the facts, they are not even worth bothering to learn the names). He assumes some kind of placebo but no athist has ever answered my answer to that: most of these experiences are first time conversion experiences by people who didn't know about them and weren't looking to have them. 45% are in children the first time they have them.. He doesn't even bother to learn the facts. If he did he would realize his argument isn't worth making. How can it be expectations when they don't expect it? Moreover if it's just "confirmation bias" how is it that experiences that contradict doctrine are common place? That shouldn't be if this is just fulfillment of expectoration they should all agree with pet doctrines.

Atheism is a cult it's a brain washing these people are prevented from thinking objectively and reasonably about scientific facts and data that disprove their cherished ideology.

btw this has been going on for five years on CARM. In that time none of them have bothered to look up a single study. Here's a dialogue I did with an atheist on CARM explaining all about the 200 studies.

more stupid atheist tricks

this is really about the stupidest thing I've seen an atheist say. Deist on CARM actually says in responses to the request that give list of my 200 studies on religious experience:

Originally Posted by Deist

That link just gives a bunch of names, many of which appear to be involved with lucid dreams and "spirit watching". I thought you had 200 cases in one spot that "proved" people had god experiences?

that list is bunch of names! dumb do do it was a Bibliography. what a fool. does this idiot really expect a Bibliography without names on it? Doesn't know what a Bib is. He said this because they got tired of being embrassed not ot know the theolgoians I talk about so they started saying I'm name dropping.

then notice he also says one study is by someone studies lucid dreaming so therefore they are all bad. The other studies have nothing to do with that one, and there's no reason to think that one is not good just becuase the person who did also studies lucid dreaming.

This is such stupidity it's really the stupidest thing I've ever seen an atheist say.

Atheist Brain Washing: The Hard Sell

I've discussed and focused upon atheist brain washing tactics in the past. Here is one of the most blatant examples of attempting it I've ever seen. A new poster on CARM calling himself "Holmes" (so I of course call him "Sherlocke") is the most blatant example. He began very aggressively saying "you know there's no God, yes you do." When you try to answer the comes back "you know you are deceiving yourself, yes you do." then he began that the tact that Chieftains are lying to themselves and others we don't really bleieve in God. He goes to great lengths to cram everything he sees or encounters into this mold.

Sherlocke's brain washing tactics on forcing people to question that they believe in God.

Holmes post 15

You either do or do not believe that god sees all and knows all and reads your every thought. If you believe it, you are "constantly aware of" his presence. This admission of not constantly being aware of god's presence is an admission that you do not believe he is constantly present. Let's say I want to commit adultery but I believe my wife is in the room. Do I see it as an advantage for her to stand behind a screen so I cannot see her? This would only help if I did NOT believe she was still in the room. You Christians do not believe in god, and you know it.

Whatever "awareness" you hae of god is NOT enough to think he is really watching you. You are capable of ignoring this supposed fact you claim to know. This is not possible. You either know he is watching or you do not. Your actions, and now your words prove you do not know this. The only thing you do different from an atheist is that you claim to know.

and this:

post 17: If they are liars, they are liars. I have had people lie to me about having had an experience they did not have. We have to use our common sense in trying to know when people are lying. If someone tells me "I can fly" and I say "OK, jump off a cliff" and they refuse, I know they are lying. If someone says "I believe god will heal our diseases if we ask him" and then they go to the doctor, I know they are lying.

Originally Posted by bierce

Post 17: What makes you think your view of reality is the standard by which we all must judge ourselves and our experiences?

Holems

Reality should be our standard. I don't have a view "of" reality, I only view reality. Reality is what is real and it is just as real for you as for me. If god were real you and I and everyone would really believe in him. He is not real and you guys only pretend to believe.

His response to me when I point out that one can't be "on" every minute 24/7. the background here is he argues that since we believe God watches us every minute if we really believed in God we would never do anything wrong. I argue that we can't be focused on that fact all the time, we have to relax. Hyperventilate is exhausting can't be maintained. God doesn't expect that or would go mad.

Originally Posted by HowardHolmes

You missed the point entirely.

Meta:

NOooo you have. you don't undersatnd my answer.

Holmes

You have NOT claimed to believe that Obama is aware of your every thought. However, Christians do claim to believe that god is aware of every thought and deed. If they REALLY believed it they would be constantly aware that he is indeed aware of every thought and deed. They would not sin if they really believed god was watching, just like they would not shoplift if they believed the security guard was watching.

Meta:

I said we are aware of it intellectually but you have to shut it off every so often and focus on other things, that's human nature and we can't help doing it, we would go mad if we didn't. Like a true ideolgoical you don't listen you don't try to apply it you just look at the template and go "it's not on the template so I can't think about it, so I'll say he missed the point."

Homles

I don't have to convince Christians they don't believe. They already know that they don't believe.

"Don't confuse me with the facts. I know I'm right I don't need proof.

Meta:
I do bleieve. you saying I don't is a lie. you are pretending ot know things about people you can't know. you are refusing to listen to what they say about how the feel. you are trying to brain wash people and bully out of their faith. this is brain washing. this how it works.

Holmes

This is true of people. it is not true of what Xns claim about god. God can be aware of every thought and deed. He's like SC who "sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake". Kids did were naughty because they did not believe the son. Christians sin because they do not believe in god.

Meta:

but we can't focus on it every minute. we know about it, but we can't always be cognizant of it. people who live together are not totally rapture about each others love ever second. ever had a relationship? You get to where you are comfortable with the other and you stop being goo goo eyed all the time.

Holmes

I'm not claiming god does not exist. I'm claiming you do not believe he exists. If you did, you would act differently than you do.

Meta:

but i do believe he exists. you don't have the right so I don't. you are telling an untruth. you are using bully tactics to brain wash people.

From the silly to ridiculous.

on a thread asking about the truth behind 9/11 I said this:

Meta:I know guys who think the government did it in order to give grounds for starting the war. they have amassed a huge case with gobs of evidence. the reason that strikes me as urban legend is becuase they said the same thing about FDR and Pearl Harbor.

Notice I did not say these guys are Christians and notice I didn't say I agree with them.

Holmes:

Typical of Christian mindset. Firstly, these guy do not have "gobs of evidence." In fact, they have zero evidence. They merely have claims. If they had evidence, they would disclose that evidence and everyone would believe it.

He sees the fallacy of Christians in everything. Even when he doesn't know they are atheist he stills sees the fallacy of Christians in what they say. Even when they don't agree with what he's calling "the typical Christian mind set." He's got it on the brain.

Why do I call it brain washing? It is bullying.It's an insistence that he knows our minds better than we do and it's creating self doubt and conflict and implying that 'You can't trust yourself, you need me to interpret reality for you." He set's up conflict and casts doubt upon one's ability to know one's on mind. Thus he seeks to break down the will and force reliance upon his judgement. He's about as subtle as a sledge hammer. He's like a guy trying to do brain surgery with a plat knife rather than a scalpel.

Another Phony "I'm so Confussed" ploy by an Atheist

Here is a post on CARM, a new poster who is an atheist.Just the basic rendition of the atheist ideology. There's no basis in fact to any of this. This one calls himself/herself "Serpe." it's written form the standpoint "I'm so confused help me know what to think!" the ploy there is "I'm going to presnet what I take to be obvious facts and claim to be confused about them for the purpose of emphasizing the what I think is obvious: science proves atheism..

S:

I believe and still believe that religion had a purpose to unite humans, but has not devolved into dividing humans. Religion causes war.

Meta:

You have no evidence to support it. you have an opinion and it's based upon a stereotype and atheist reasoning which biased and concocted to argue against religion that's not support for a position that claims to be factual.

I don't see why people believe anything in the face of so much evidence to the contrary. But now I'm being told that there isn't that much evidence against religion. In fact, there's as much evidence for religion as there is for evolution.

There are no such facts. This is nothing more than the atheist ideological notion of the "fortress of facts." That is a propaganda piece not a factual scientific statement. Science is not atheism and scinece does not prove. There is no fortress of facts.

I'm a staunch believer in evolution. It's an amazing and sound scientific theory. And for those who cry, “It's only a theory!” misunderstand that theory means scientific explanation that is widely accepted. Gravity is also “only a theory,” my friends.

Evolution is not an argument against the existence of God. Nothing about evolution that contradicts God.

The Universe is beautiful and infinite. There are so many things that had to go right for life to evolve as it has, but the Universe is immensely chaotic and unfriendly to life. Plus, life has to have happened elsewhere in the Universe. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

Fine tuning a good argument, it takes a lot more time than this little dust off you have given it.

Consciousness is a chemical reaction, as are thoughts and emotions. That being said, when people say, “God is Love,” I hear, “God is a chemical reaction.” I think that God is in our heads.

consciousness is not a chemical reaction.no evidence anywhere proves that that is a propaganda move based upon the ideology of reductionism. No factual basis it's contradicted by the hard problem, Veto power, and top down causation.

But recently, I've been conflicted. I want to believe in God and Jesus. I want to be a Christian. But I feel that I can't, with my beliefs. I feel it contradicts everything I stand for, and I can't go for that. I feel that science and religion can't mix, and when my life has built it's foundations on science, I can't “sink” to religion. Has anyone else ever felt this way? Please share your experiences. Does anyone have any thoughts to help me through this time in my life?

This is so absurdly silly. There is nothing in the basis of scinece that contradicts belief in God. Many major scientists today including the head of the Genome project are Chieftains or other types believers in God. Nothing about scinece that contradicts God.

the fact that all of these unthinking type of atheist (one type) have the impression that scinece somehow contradicts God is merely the result of propaganda and brain washing (socialization).

I'm also going to post this in the Christian side, to see what the believers have to say.The major lesson here is that atheism has gotten as far as it has by catering to ignorance, bigotry and creating a socialization process (brain washing).